You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

I've been thinking a lot about entitlement in the last year because of personal attacks from the extreme left. I've had a lot of words thrown at me, and the word "deserves" makes me flinch now. Broken down to its most basic form, entitlement implies an expectation and disappointment. i.e. I expected something, I didn't get what I want, and I feel angry about it because I "deserve" it. I think it's a cognitive habit that is established early on in development, that we eventually develop consciously control over. If we don't control it we end up as narcissists where we expect the whole world to revolve around us and throw tantrums when things don't go our way. I also think that the opposite of entitlement is resilience. Experientially, where entitlement blames the environment and external factors, resilience focuses on an internal locus of control. There's also quite a bit of psych stuff done about how we're a lot more resilient when we expect pain and failure as opposed to expecting things to be fast and easy. That difference in expectations and internal/external explanatory styles draws a line between entitlement and resilience.

I largely agree with what's said here, but a certain degree of entitlement is necessary in life. It isn't necessarily a negative force that works against having an internal locus of control. Without any degree of expecting the external world to provide something in exchange for our effort, there's helplessness (as was referenced with the marshmallow experiment-gone-awry, lack of trust and whatnot). If a person consistently internalizes the reason something in the external world didn't work out for them/the reason they feel bad in an unproductive way ("This happened because I'm bad/stupid/ugly", or "I feel bad because I'm too <whatever pejorative>", "I'm not worth anything", etc)- that results in poor internal locus of control as well.

Resilience comes from effective emotion regulation. It's not the opposite of entitlement, it's the opposite of having no tolerance for distress (though entitlement issues can cause distress, so maybe it could be said it's the opposite of having adequate awareness of one's own entitlement issues...). My point here is that a distinct lack of entitlement impairs resilience just as much as inflated entitlement.

I largely agree with what's said here, but a certain degree of entitlement is necessary in life. It isn't necessarily a negative force that works against having an internal locus of control. Without any degree of expecting the external world to provide something in exchange for our effort, there's helplessness (as was referenced with the marshmallow experiment-gone-awry, lack of trust and whatnot). If a person consistently internalizes the reason something in the external world didn't work out for them/the reason they feel bad in an unproductive way ("This happened because I'm bad/stupid/ugly", or "I feel bad because I'm too <whatever pejorative>", "I'm not worth anything", etc)- that results in poor internal locus of control as well.

Resilience comes from effective emotion regulation. It's not the opposite of entitlement, it's the opposite of having no tolerance for distress (though entitlement issues can cause distress, so maybe it could be said it's the opposite of having adequate awareness of one's own entitlement issues...). My point here is that a distinct lack of entitlement impairs resilience just as much as inflated entitlement.

I don't believe in expecting the external world to provide something for me, personally. Though I have to qualify this by saying that I expect myself to fight for a society in which there is equal opportunity for the disadvantaged. As my parents would say, that's a very western way of looking at things. The Japanese, for example, believe in rewarding not achievement but effort. They believe that effort and self-development in itself are rewards to strive for, that there is perfection in being imperfect (a very zen idea), and a heroism to committing yourself to a failing cause - out of loyalty, duty etc. The stoics had a similar philosophy. Believing that an outcome is wholly and entirely dependent on yourself is (counter-intuitively) a very egotistical way of looking at life. It implies that you are the the defining factor in every event and that you can see/plan for every possible variable. Further, linking outcomes to a self-esteem is always going to be a bad idea. Self-esteem is far more stable if it is built on keeping effort/progress-defined promises. There's been quite a bit published on these ideas in pedagogy - from Paul Tough, Carol Dweck to Angela Duckworth's work. I've borrowed liberally from them in thinking about these concepts.

"How badly did you have to break it to make it care about people so much?"
"That didn't break it. It's what made it work."

I think our disagreement comes from having different definitions of resilience.

I read the page linked above for resilience, and if anything it actually affirms what I was saying (about emotional competence/regulation). So I'm not sure what the problem is here.

All I'm adding (to what you wrote) is that a distinct lack of entitlement- too little entitlement- also compromises a person's resilience. It sounds a bit like you're hearing that I'm saying self-esteem should be based on outcomes of effort? (Is that correct?) That's not what I'm saying. I'm just trying to point out how I don't think entitlement is the opposite of resilience, because there's little or no resilience at the opposite end of an inflated sense of entitlement (at negative entitlement, ie learned helplessness- which Martin Seligman has done some very interesting studies on).

I read Paul Tough's How Children Succeed, and remember it making a big impression on me- especially Duckworth's contribution about grit. (Her book, Grit, is on my reading queue- but haven't gotten to it yet.)

ETA: WAIT WAIT WAIT I think I get where you're coming from- resilience is the opposite of entitlement if you're just looking exclusively at entitlement, and comparing it to a healthier way to experience the world.

All I'm adding (to what you wrote) is that a distinct lack of entitlement- too little entitlement- also compromises a person's resilience. It sounds a bit like you're hearing that I'm saying self-esteem should be based on outcomes of effort? (Is that correct?) That's not what I'm saying.

The title definition of resilience that I used on that page also encompasses a problem-solving/action element (which I include in what I define as resilience), but the description on the page covers mainly the element that we discussed with locus of control and emotional regulation.

Yes, that's my understanding was. Because you said:

Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate

Without any degree of expecting the external world to provide something in exchange for our effort, there's helplessness (as was referenced with the marshmallow experiment-gone-awry, lack of trust and whatnot).

That was where I interpreted it to mean that we should expect some degree of positive outcome - i.e. that we should expect to get something back for whatever we put in, or there would be a sense of helplessness because there's lack of control over the environment.

Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate

I'm just trying to point out how I don't think entitlement is the opposite of resilience, because there's little or no resilience at the opposite end of an inflated sense of entitlement (at negative entitlement, ie learned helplessness- which Martin Seligman has done some very interesting studies on).

I think I get what you're saying now. That under a state of learned helplessness where people feel that they are entitled to nothing, they are not resilient. So integrating everything that's been discussed, differences might be represented as such

The title definition of resilience that I used on that page also encompasses a problem-solving/action element (which I include in what I define as resilience), but the description on the page covers mainly the element that we discussed with locus of control and emotional regulation.

I consider the acting drive/action element to be part of emotional regulation, because (assuming there's positive/hopeful emotion happening) emotion seeks expression on its own. Action will generally organically happen on its own where a person is effectively regulating their own emotion. So yes, I can see here where perhaps our conceptions of emotional regulation may differ. [eta: If there is no drive to problem-solve or act, then emotions aren't actually effectively being regulated- imo that in itself is a sign there's more emotional processing/work to be done. /eta]

As an aside: if you like Paul Tough, you might like Gordon Neufeld's Hold On To Your Kids. @fidelia will back me up on this.

Yes, that's my understanding was. Because you said:

Okay, I think the word "expect" is what caused the misunderstanding. I meant it in more of a 'to hope for' sense, not 'feel entitled to' sense. Like here:

Though I have to qualify this by saying that I expect myself to fight for a society in which there is equal opportunity for the disadvantaged.

I was going to use this as an example and ask why you'd fight if you didn't at least hope your effort would bear some fruit. There is a difference between 'hope for, but accept it might not happen' and 'feel entitled to', for sure.

I think I get what you're saying now. That under a state of learned helplessness where people feel that they are entitled to nothing, they are not resilient. So integrating everything that's been discussed, differences might be represented as such

I consider the acting drive/action element to be part of emotional regulation, because (assuming there's positive/hopeful emotion happening) emotion seeks expression on its own. Action will generally organically happen on its own where a person is effectively regulating their own emotion. So yes, I can see here where perhaps our conceptions of emotional regulation may differ. [eta: If there is no drive to problem-solve or act, then emotions aren't actually effectively being regulated- imo that in itself is a sign there's more emotional processing/work to be done. /eta]

Again this might be the Fi/Fe divide, but I don't believe that emotion organically seeks expression on its own. To me, emotional regulation only involves contextualisation and moderation of intensity. In the bigger picture, acting on certain emotions can create more chaos. If I respond very emotionally to something, it's a sign to not immediately react, but to withdraw, contextualise and understand. There have been situations where after sitting for a while and figuring out that further action would make things worse, I've had to accept that my emotions aren't all that important in the bigger picture. From the emotion to the decision/taking action, there is a clear break - at least there is, for me.

Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate

As an aside: if you like Paul Tough, you might like Gordon Neufeld's Hold On To Your Kids.

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll check it out.

Originally Posted by Z Buck McFate

Okay, I think the word "expect" is what caused the misunderstanding. I meant it in more of a 'to hope for' sense, not 'feel entitled to' sense. Like here:

I was going to use this as an example and ask why you'd fight if you didn't at least hope your effort would bear some fruit. There is a difference between 'hope for, but accept it might not happen' and 'feel entitled to', for sure.

There's a quote from Angel that sums up the "why". It doesn't really have anything to do with hope or expectations, but the role that you see yourself playing in the world.

Angel: Well, I guess I kinda worked it out. If there's no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters... then all that matters is what we do. 'Cause that's all there is. What we do. Now. Today. I fought for so long, for redemption, for a reward, and finally just to beat the other guy, but I never got it.

Kate Lockley: And now you do?

Angel: Not all of it. All I wanna do is help. I wanna help because, I don't think people should suffer as they do. Because, if there's no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.

"How badly did you have to break it to make it care about people so much?"
"That didn't break it. It's what made it work."

but I don't believe that emotion organically seeks expression on its own. To me, emotional regulation only involves contextualisation and moderation of intensity. In the bigger picture, acting on certain emotions can create more chaos. If I respond very emotionally to something, it's a sign to not immediately react, but to withdraw, contextualise and understand. There have been situations where after sitting for a while and figuring out that further action would make things worse, I've had to accept that my emotions aren't all that important in the bigger picture. From the emotion to the decision/taking action, there is a clear break - at least there is, for me.

Something tells me we're just butting heads about the meaning of words again, because I don't actually see anything here I don't agree with. You're describing a clear break in between the process of "emotion regulation" and action- which suggests to me that for you the phrase "emotion regulation" applies exclusively to the processing of emotion, which would (ideally) proceed any any action. But I don't see any disagreement that the result of that emotional regulation ultimately fuels, in one way or another, consequent action. Alternately, the consequence of apathy/diminished or repressed emotion is sloth/'laziness'. (I'm not trying to push for agreement here- it's totally cool to not agree- it's just that I don't actually see disagreement in the first place.)

There's a quote from Angel that sums up the "why". It doesn't really have anything to do with hope or expectations, but the role that you see yourself playing in the world.

All I wanna do is help. I wanna help because, I don't think people should suffer as they do. Because, if there's no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.

Regardless of the correct word to describe it, there is an effect (or some sort) that Angel desires (regardless of whether "desires" is the correct word) here- that's what I was going after. Bonus points for citing Angel.